During the holiday weekend The Wife and I finished the first season of AMC’s Walking Dead on Netflix streaming. So it seemed appropriate to augment this week’s article with five more recommendations of underrated walking dead media. As we finish up the remaining Thanksgiving bounty let us be grateful we do not live in a world overrun with hordes of mindless zombies. Now back to discussing the GOP primary, its overrated candidates, and their true believers — all of which in no way resemble the apocalyptic scenarios of our entertainments…

One of the truisms of our political culture today is that “centrist” establishment Republicans are less “ideologically-driven” than “hard right” Tea Partiers. (All these terms are in quotations because none of them actually means anything empirical.) According to this view, “moderate” conservatives are the adults who care more about governing reasonably. We “extreme” Tea Partiers who advocate for the New Deal welfare state’s disassembly do so out of blind-eyed zeal, not a rational analysis of the price America pays as FDR’s economic chickens finally return home to roost.

The irony, though, is that those who most rely on the “Left,” “Right,” and “Center” lens to interpret the political landscape are actually the ones who claim to be above ideological purity: the “pragmatic,” “reasonable,” “grown-up” so-called RINOs who now sneer at those who doubt the electability of their White Knight Mitt Romney.

This column in The Wall Street Journal by talk radio host Michael Medved is a perfect example. Medved’s Zombie-like devotion to Right/Left/Center thinking yields a column filled from beginning to end with lifeless arguments responding to made-up opponents. (And they get worse as the column goes on.)

Medved is not a stupid man at all and he remains a gifted defender of free societies. But Ideology — the political word’s theology — kills brain activity and makes automatons of otherwise thoughtful human beings. Instead of thinking about a question for ourselves we just go with the “common sense notion” of our peer group, regardless of whether the political culture still sustains it. This is why Dennis Prager — who comes before Medved on KRLA here in Los Angeles — insists on the importance of thinking a second time. Howard Bloom promotes the same injunction in his book The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalismas his second rule of science: look at everything under your nose as though you’re looking at it for the first time. Bloom’s first rule is “the truth at any price, even the price of your life” and right from the beginning of Medved’s column he ignores this ground zero of rational thought. We start with the sixth most-zombie-like idea in the column:

6. You can name an opponent, cite a specific piece, and then rebut arguments it does not make.

Such projections of doom portray Mr. Romney as the dreary second coming of John McCain—a hapless moderate foisted on the disillusioned rank and file by the GOP’s country-club establishment, with no real chance to rally the conservative base or draw clear distinctions with Barack Obama.

This analysis, endlessly recycled on the right, relies on groundless assumptions about recent political history. Three myths in particular demand rebuttal…

Read Erickson’s bold piece right here. Then note the three “myths” that Medved dedicates his article to rebutting. I’ll summarize them now and reveal their shortcomings in a moment:

A) John McCain lost in 2008 because he was a RINO who did not inspire conservatives to get out and vote.

B) RINO Republican elites “forced” McCain on good conservatives who did not want him.

C) Conservatism is a winning political message that cannot be beaten. Ever. Anywhere.

None of these strawman arguments appear in Erickson’s article. And this sets the pattern for the piece: it’s really just Medved misrepresenting Tea Partiers instead of engaging us as his intellectual and moral equal.

Is anyone surprised that throughout his op/ed Medved doesn’t quote his opponents’ actual arguments?

I’m not. One need only listen to Medved’s radio show to understand why he doesn’t respect Erickson enough to respond fairly. Medved’s style of argumentation in his column is related to why he’s the only KRLA talk radio host that provokes me to change the station. Glenn Beck from 6-9, Dennis Prager from 9-12, Medved from 12-3, Hugh Hewitt from 3-6, Mike Gallagher from 6-8, and then Dennis Miller from 8-11. Why do I avoid Medved if I’m driving around town when he’s on? It has nothing to do with ideology (some of my dearest friends have similar views and so did I a few years ago) and everything to do with temperament. When listening to Beck, Prager, Hewitt, Gallagher, and Miller, I don’t feel as though I’m being talked down to by a teacher who disdains his students. Each of them acknowledges their mental limits and seems genuinely eager to learn from others whether it’s a random housewife calling in or a Ph.D. promoting a book. But not Medved. When I listen to his show he seems more interested in forcing his opinion on others rather than joining his guests and listeners as we try to discover the truth together. And that manifests in his column too: He does not even have enough interest in others’ ideas to rebut them.

Next: Let the burning of the straw men commence. Help yourself to a torch.

The funny thing is that a case can be made for Romney, even though he completly wiffed on the task. The issue isn’t that he’s the most electable — I continue to maintain that there are other candidates who would not only be more conservative, they would have been as or more electable. The problem is that no such candidate exists in the current race.

And to the extent Romney is more electable, his ideology has little to do with it. Romney is probably more electable than Newt because he doesn’t have Newt’s baggage (personal and otherwise), and more electable than Perry because he is a solid debater and not tied (fairly or not) in the public’s mind with George W Bush. And really, at least as to the former, he really isn’t any less conservative, so there doesn’t seem to be any advantage to taking a flyer on the riskier candidate.

That said, Romney isn’t getting my vote at this time. It’s one thing to vote for that ___ sandwich when the opponent is Obama, but as long as there is someone decent to vote for in the Primary they’ll get my vote even they have no chance of winning, so it’s Gary Johnson for me.

Back in the day I remember being dumbfounded by the number of my acquaintenances whose first choice for POTUS was Robert Kennedy & whose second choice was George Wallace or vice-versa. These people were attracted to both men’s activism and perception they were strong individuals who “could get things done”. Many (most?) people are comparatively naive about the left, right & center categories that many of us “sophisticated” (read cracker barrel) political philosophers take for granted.

The USA is fracturing along partisan lines, and repeating its short history. There have been been Two nation wide banking collapses ( not including the great depression as the banking system did no actually collapse)and we appear to be heading into a Third.
But more important is asking if Presidents birth certificate is fake, or how much superPAC money a GOP candidate received, etc, etc, etc.

The nation is speeding towards the cliff but instead of applying brakes, we keep pressing the accelerator down further.

HW, you are absolutely right. Obviously liberals will not vote for Romney but what happens when not all of the Conservatives vote for him either? 4 more years of Obama. This is exactly what happened with McCain and will happen again if we try an Obama-Lite candidate. I don’t know if any of you remember but in 2008 Michael Medved was absolutely transfixed on McCain and would not deviate from him. I stopped listening to him for over a year because of that. I suggest we ignore his advice this time.

I particularly liked your discussion of so-called independents in the context of the legacy media’s constant assumption that they are half way between the Republican and Democrat wings of the Progressive Party. It is not so, it never has been so, and I am thrilled that you said so.

Have to disagree with you on ‘Superbad’. I tried watching though 10-15 minutes into it I had to turn it off. The same story for ‘Knocked Up’, 5 minutes into ‘Protect & Serve’ 4 minutes into ‘Funny People’ and 3 minutes into ‘Green Hornet’. Just thankful Bruce Lee didn’t have to hear/see the last one.

Seth Rogen’s been in the aforementioned stinkers. He has to be the most unfunny person to be considered funny. Well, besides Bill Maher (BTW Seth Rogen was in the sic-fi flick, ‘Paul’. Even with Shaun of the Dead stars Simon Pegg & Nick Frost.. it was blah as well).

‘Night of the Comet’ not to be confused with the equally campy
‘Year of the Comet’ >:)

Actually, the introduction to ‘Wall-e’ might be more appropriate,
with everything falling apart, and TPTB scurrying to escape.

Question: If things get as bad as I expect (surrounded by zombies)
will not the people of the US demand a certain response from whoever
gets elected, without regard to that person’s political philosophy ?

Mr. Medved is uncommonly bright, in easy command of fact, and he has a memory that is uncanny. When I can I listen to Rush Limbaugh and then switch stations to hear Michael Medved. But I am always struck by the contrast. Limbaugh is animated by principle and Medved by uninspired (and uninspiring) pragmatism. What good is principled conservatism, Mr. Medved asks, if you lose an election? A fair question, one might say. But let me put another question: if I try to save someone who is drowning, mightn’t I risk losing my life? Praxis vs. principle. I don’t mean to suggest that Mr. Medved would not act selflessly or argue with certainty that Mr. Limbaugh would.
The latter question is metaphorical, but it would seem to apply to the political scene and to the differences between the two hosts. As a thought experiment, imagine who would be more likely to make this statement: If the Republicans run a competent campaign, clearly articulating conservative ideas, and they lose after a fair hearing, so be it. Perhaps the ideas will live beyond the campaign and take root to inform the next election. If not, then we are beyond help anyway. We stood on principle.

Medved is generally dismissive of contrary opinions. Whether one agrees with him from time to time or not, his arguments are heavily weighted with attitude.
He is quick to discredit the motives of opponents. I recall his radio show during the debates over amnesty in ’07. Vociferously in favor of Bush’s efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform, Medved routinely referred to his adversaries (who constituted a majority of the American people) as bigots,
nativists and racists. His words, not mine.
The irony of his recent arguments is that many of the conservatives who either sat out the ’08 presidential election or voted for third party candidates, or even for Obama, was that these conservatives knew that McCain, despite his protestations to the contrary, would push for an amnesty if elected. The reason no amnesty has been passed under Obama is simply that the R’s have been unified against it. Does anyone doubt that the R party would have been torn apart on this issue under McCain as it was under Bush?
This is precisely why many conservatives and patriots will never support Gingrich, who is a McCain/Bush/Kennedy cone when it comes to illegal immigration. In ’08, with the margin of victory so great, this sub-group of voters probably had little impact on the election. In ’12 however, its likely to be a closer race. An open-borders, amnesty candidate like Gingrich cannot be elected if these conservatives once again don’t show up at the polls.

Medved is generally dismissive of contrary opinions. Whether one agrees with him from time to time or not, his arguments are heavily weighted with attitude.
He is quick to discredit the motives of opponents. I recall his radio show during the debates over amnesty in ’07. Vociferously in favor of Bush’s efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform, Medved routinely referred to his adversaries (who constituted a majority of the American people) as bigots,
nativists and racists. His words, not mine.
The irony of his recent arguments is that many of the conservatives who either sat out the ’08 presidential election or voted for third party candidates, or even for Obama, was that these conservatives knew that McCain, despite his protestations to the contrary, would push for an amnesty if elected. The reason no amnesty has been passed under Obama is simply that the R’s have been unified against it. Does anyone doubt that the R party would have been torn apart on this issue under McCain as it was under Bush?
This is precisely why many conservatives and patriots will never support Gingrich, who is a McCain/Bush/Kennedy clone when it comes to illegal immigration. In ’08, with the margin of victory so great, this sub-group of voters probably had little impact on the election. In ’12 however, its likely to be a closer race. An open-borders, amnesty candidate like Gingrich cannot be elected if these conservatives once again don’t show up at the polls.

NOt to state the obvious, but what was the point of the use of the Zombie metaphor? It is the trite pop cultural go to position of the day. J. Goldburg stumbles into it from time to time. Luckily i’m an excellent skimmer and glossed over the inanities. As for your central idea… wait! I only remember the walking dead grafted on. Sorry.